RESUMO
The incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is expected to increase in the coming years, and strategies to mitigate the burden of this disease are needed in different regions. Geographic variations in epidemiology and risk factors, such as viral hepatitis and metabolic disease, pose challenges in adopting programs for early detection programs and management of patients with HCC. Brazil, like other countries, has high economic and social inequality, with heterogeneous access to health care. Viral hepatitis is the main risk factor but there is growing awareness of fatty liver disease. Risk factor monitoring and screening programs are unmet priorities because patients are often diagnosed at later stages. Advances in the management of patients with HCC have been made in recent years, including new tools for selecting patients for liver transplantation, sophisticated surgical techniques, and new systemic agents. High-volume academic centers often achieve favorable results through the adoption and application of established treatments, but this is not a reality in most regions of Brazil, because of disparities in wealth and resources. As HCC management requires a coordinated and multidisciplinary team, the role of local referral centers in decentralizing access to treatments and promoting health education in different regions should be encouraged and supported.
Assuntos
Carcinoma Hepatocelular , Neoplasias Hepáticas , Humanos , Carcinoma Hepatocelular/diagnóstico , Carcinoma Hepatocelular/epidemiologia , Carcinoma Hepatocelular/terapia , Neoplasias Hepáticas/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Hepáticas/epidemiologia , Neoplasias Hepáticas/terapia , Brasil/epidemiologia , Fatores de Risco , IncidênciaRESUMO
PURPOSE: The aim of our study is to evaluate the undergrading and understaging rates in patients with clinically localized insignificant prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between July 2005 and July 2008, 406 patients underwent radical prostatectomy for clinical localized prostate cancer in our hospital. Based on preoperative data, 93 of these patients fulfilled our criteria of non-significance: Gleason score < 7, stage T1c, PSA < 10 ng/mL and percentage of affected fragments less than 25%. The pathologic stage and Gleason score were compared to preoperative data to evaluate the rate of understaging and undergrading. The biochemical recurrence free survival of these operated insignificant cancers were also evaluated. RESULTS: On surgical specimen analysis 74.7% of patients had Gleason score of 6 or less and 25.3% had Gleason 7 or greater. Furthermore 8.3% of cases showed extracapsular extension. After 36 months of follow-up 3.4% had biochemical recurrence, defined by a PSA above 0.4 ng/mL. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the limited number of cases, we have found considerable rates of undergrading and understaging in patients with prostate cancer whose current definitions classified them as candidates for active surveillance. According to our results the current definition seems inadequate as up to a third of patients had higher grade or cancer outside the prostate.
Assuntos
Recidiva Local de Neoplasia/patologia , Próstata/patologia , Prostatectomia , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia , Idoso , Biópsia por Agulha , Distribuição de Qui-Quadrado , Seguimentos , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Invasividade Neoplásica , Estadiamento de Neoplasias , Prognóstico , Antígeno Prostático Específico/análise , Neoplasias da Próstata/cirurgiaRESUMO
PURPOSE: The aim of our study is to evaluate the undergrading and understaging rates in patients with clinically localized insignificant prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between July 2005 and July 2008, 406 patients underwent radical prostatectomy for clinical localized prostate cancer in our hospital. Based on preoperative data, 93 of these patients fulfilled our criteria of non-significance: Gleason score < 7, stage T1c, PSA < 10 ng/mL and percentage of affected fragments less than 25 percent. The pathologic stage and Gleason score were compared to preoperative data to evaluate the rate of understaging and undergrading. The biochemical recurrence free survival of these operated insignificant cancers were also evaluated. RESULTS: On surgical specimen analysis 74.7 percent of patients had Gleason score of 6 or less and 25.3 percent had Gleason 7 or greater. Furthermore 8.3 percent of cases showed extracapsular extension. After 36 months of follow-up 3.4 percent had biochemical recurrence, defined by a PSA above 0.4 ng/mL. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the limited number of cases, we have found considerable rates of undergrading and understaging in patients with prostate cancer whose current definitions classified them as candidates for active surveillance. According to our results the current definition seems inadequate as up to a third of patients had higher grade or cancer outside the prostate.